oA m Bi ae HAMPSHIRE ’ 


aot _INTERLIB ce 
/ Pike wi Pope 
yf oe 


: NUMISMATIC N con % ape. 


fh, A 


| THE ANONYMOUS BYZANTINE 
3 ‘BRONZE COINAGE 


ALFRED R. BELLINGER 


§ 
oe, 


THE AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY 
BROADWAY AT 156TH STREET 
_ NEW YORK > 
~ eg et ae 


PUBLICATIONS 


———— 


} 


The American Journal of Numismatics, 
1866-1920. 


Monthly, May, 1866-April, 1870 
Quarterly, July, 1870-October, 1912. 
Annually, 1913-1920. 


With many plates, illustrations, maps and tables 
Less than a dozen complete sets of the Jour- 
nal remain on hand. Prices on application. 


The numbers necessary to complete broken sets 
may in most cases be obtained. An index to 
the first fifty volumes has been issued as part 
of Volume LI. It may also be purchased 
separately for $3.00. 


‘The American Numismatic Society. Catalogue 
of the International Exhibition of Contempo- 
rary Medals. March, 1910. New and revised 
edition. New York. IQII. xxxvi, 412 
pages, 512 illustrations. $10.00. 


The American Numismatic Society. Exhibition 
of United States and Colonial Coins. 1914 
vii, 134 pages, 40 plates. $1.00. 


—s ee 


Peeve! SMA] IC 
NOTES AND MONOGRAPHS 


NuUMISMATIC NOTES AND MONOGRAPHS 
is devoted to essays and treatises on sub- 
jects relating to coins, paper money, 
medals and decorations, and is uniform 
with Hispanic Notes and Monographs 
published by the Hispanic Society of 
America, and with Indian Notes and 
Monographs issued by the Museum of the 


American Indian—Heye Foundation. 


PUBLICATION COMMITTEE 


AcnEs BaLpwin Brett, Chairman 
W. Gepney Beatty 
Henry Russett DrowneE 

Joun REILLy, Jr. 


EDITORIAL STAFF 


SypNEY Puitip Noe, Editor 
How ranp Woon, Associate Editor 


THE ANONYMOUS BYZANTINE 
BRONZE COINAGE 


BY 
ALFRED R. BELLINGER 


{ 


THE AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY 
BROADWAY AT 156TH STREET 
NEW YORK 
1928 


3 


AIN3S ¢ W102 Cm. 


THE ANONYMOUS BYZANTINE 
BRONZE COINAGE 


By ALFRED R. BELLINGER 


The attribution of Byzantine coins is, in the main, 
a simple affair because of the regular use on them of 
the imperial name; the chief difficulty arises from the 
profusion of Leos, Michaels and Constantines. But, 
at one point, the assistance of the name deserts us 
and we are confronted by a number of issues of 
bronze which bear in their types no evidence as to 
the issuer. Considerations of style alone would 
assign them to the 1oth and 11th centuries, and, as 
it happens, we have the explicit testimony of a 
Byzantine historian to the effect that the series was 
begun by John J. On December 11, 969, John 
Zimisces had assassinated Nicephorus Phocas. 
Nicephorus had been Emperor of the Romans by 
right of his guardianship of Basil and Constantine, 
sons of Romanus I], heirs to the throne, and John, 
having disposed of his predecessor, was himself 
crowned as John I, associating with himself the 
rightful princes, as Nicephorus had done. Never- 
theless, his was the hand that directed the empire 
until his death on January 10, 976, when his wards 
were left to reign together as Basil II and Con- 
stantine VIII. During the usurper’s reign was 
begun the series of anonymous bronze coins, of 
pious types, which continued through several suc- 


I 


2 ~ © THE ANONYMOUS 


ceeding reigns, whose more definite attribution to 
their respective emperors is the purpose of this 
work. The testimony as to the initiation of the 
series is:that of John Scylitzes, as quoted by George 
Cedrenus (Cedren. IJ, pp. 413,f Bonn 1839) 
TIpocétate 38 kat év tH voutocuare Kat gv tH 6B0AM 
etkdva éyyedpecbat tod cwrijpoc, ut) TedtEpoy TOUTOU 
ytvougvou. éypdgovto 6&8 Kal yoduuata pwuatorl 
éy Oatéom wéper Mdé wy Sre&tdyta “’Iyncotc Xototds 
Baotkedo BactAéwy.”’- sotto 58 kat of kabettc érn- 
onoay BactAetc. 

‘‘And he commanded the likeness of the Savior 
to be engraved on the nomisma and the obol, which 
was not done before this. And Greek letters were 
engraved on the other side to about this purport, 
‘Jesus Christ, King of Kings’ And the kings who 
succeeded him did the same.” It is not certain 
what the author means by zy. The actual in- 
scription to which he obviously refers is thsys/ 
/xristys/basiLey/bAsiLe where the abbreviations 
are necessitated by the shape of the coin. This 
seems like too insignificant a variation to demand 
the qualification zy, but, on the other hand, the 
succeeding types which do materially change the 
inscription (e.g. 1s xs/bAsILe/bASILe) were, as we 
shall see, certainly not the coinage of John. But 
there are two more important inaccuracies in the 
passage. In the first place, while the nomisma 
does bear the bust of Christ on one side, it has not 
the inscription on the other, as Scylitzes’ language 


implies. Instead, busts of John and the Virgin 


ae Se ee ee eee ee ee ee, oe a 


aie re ¥ 
a. ae ae Oe 


BYZANTINE BRONZE 3 


appear on the reverse (which is generally referred 
to as the obverse, from the convention of considering 
the obverse always that side which bears the im- 
perial portrait) and John is there named. In the 
second place, the phrase wh xpdtepov tovToU 
ytvougvou is misleading. Christ had appeared on 
the gold of eleven previous reigns.! We must con- 
clude, then, that in both these cases Scylitzes was 
speaking loosely and really had reference to the 
bronze obol only and not to the gold nomisma. 
Making these minor allowances, we may accept 
the passage as it stands, for it affords an accurate 
description of the earliest type of anonymous bronze, 
which we have every reason to suppose was struck 
by John. But before we leave Scylitzes, it is worth 
considering for a moment how far we can use him 
in determining the date of this first issue. Wroth 
(B.M.C. p. 481) quotes him to the effect that this 
coinage was inaugurated in 972. There is no date 
in the passage, so that Wroth, who gives no further 
evidence for what he says, must have dated the 
event from its position in the history. Now the 
passage immediately before the one under consider- 
ation deals with John’s rebuilding of a church and 

1 Justinian II, 685-695 and 705-711, Michael III and 
Theodora, circ. 852-856, Basil I, 867-886, Leo VI and 
Constantine VII, 911-912, Alexander, 912-913, Con- 
stantine VII and Romanus I, 919-921, Romanus I and 
Christopher, 921-927, Romanus I, Christopher and Con- 
stantine VII, 927-931, Constantine VII, 945, Constantine 


VII and Romanus II, 945-959, and Nicephorus IT, 963- 
969. 


4 THE ANONYMOUS 


_ remitting a certain tax in celebration of his triumph 
over the Russians which occurred in 972 (Schlum- 
berger ‘‘L’Epopée Byzantine a la fin du Dixiéme 
Siécle,’”’ Chapter III). It would then be natural to 
suppose that the striking of these coins came at the 
same time.! But the chronological value of the 
paragraph is gravely impaired by the fact that it 
ends with a notice of the deposition of the patriarch 
Basil, which occurred in 974 (Schlumberger op. cit. 
Chapter V) while the next paragraph returns to 
mention the appearance of the comet in August 972. 
It seems as though the historian, having paused to 
mention the rebuilding of the church, chose to deal 
briefly with sundry other miscellaneous matters 
before going back to the course of his narrative. The 
probability is all against so late an initiation of the 
coinage, for, as we have no other types for John, 
we must believe, if we follow Scylitzes, that from 
December 969 until August 972 he had no coins of 
his own at all and therefore had to continue in cir- 
culation the issues of Nicephorus, whom he had 
murdered. This seems so questionable, both from 
policy and sentiment, that we are justified in setting 
aside the equivocal testimony of Scylitzes and as- 
suming that John’s coinage begins where it normally 
should, in 970. The words of the text show. that 
bronze coins with pious legends continued beyond 
the reign of John, and, as a matter of fact, there are 

1 Schlumberger (p. 184) adopts this view: ‘fit alors 


graver sur sa monnaie, certainement en reconnaissance des 
victoires obtenues.”’ 


BYZANTINE BRONZE 5 


the following types, bearing no imperial name, to be 
accounted for. 

Class I. Obv.i—+eMMANOVHA Bust of Christ, 
bearded, facing, wearing nimbus cruciger, tunic 
and mantle; right hand raised in benediction; left 
hand holds book of the Gospels; in field 1c xc to 
right and left. Border of dots. Nimbus and book 
with various ornaments. Rev.—thsys/xristys/ba- 
stLey/basiLe. Above and below, various orna- 
ments, or none. Border of dots. PI. I, 2-6. 

Class II. Obv.—Similar. Nimbus with two 
pellets and © in each limb of cross. Book with 
s*, Rev.—is xs/bas 1Lée/bas ILé in the angles of a 
Latin cross on three steps. A pellet at each ex- 
tremity of the cross, the top one with —-— to left 
and right. Border of dots. PI. I, 7. 

Class III. Obv.—Same inscription. Half length 
figure of Christ, bearded, standing facing, wears 
tunic, mantle and nimbus cruciger with one pellet 
in each limb of the cross; right hand raised in bene- 
diction; left hand holds book of the Gospels with 
pellets on cover; in field 1c xc to left and right. 
Border of dots. Rev.—ic xc/NI KA in the angles 
of a jewelled cross with a large pellet in the center, 
a large pellet and two small ones at each extremity. 
Border of dots.! Pl. I, 8, 9. 

Class IV. Obv.—Similar to Obv. of Classes I and 
II, except that both hands hold book. Two pellets 
in each limb of cross; 2s on book. Rev.—is xs/ 


1 This type sometimes reads NI KA, Pl. I, 8 (so given 
B.M.C. p. 507) but it is more commonly NI KA, PI. I, 9. 


6 THE ANONYMOUS 


hastLe/bastIL. Above -*=; below —w-.  Bor- 
der of dots; Pli- 1, 10; 

Class V. Obv.—Christ, bearded, seated facing 
on throne without back, wearing plain nimbus 
cruciger, tunic and mantle; right hand outstretched 
in benediction; in left hand, book of Gospels with 
‘+3 oncover. In field 1c xc to left and right. Border 
of dots. Rev.—isxs/bAsILE/basIL. Above —4— 
below *. Border of dots. Pl. II, 1. 

Class VI. Obv.—Christ, bearded, seated facing 
on throne with back, wearing nimbus cruciger with 
one pellet in each limb of cross, tunic and mantle; 
right hand raised in benediction; in left hand, book 
of Gospels with “*” on cover; in field 1c xc to left 
and right. Border of dots. .Rev.—i1sxs/basive/ 
basIL. Above —+— below -—we Border of dots. 
Piglivai 

Class VII. Obv.—Bust of Christ, bearded, facing, 
wearing plain nimbus cruciger, tunic and mantle; 
right hand in benediction; left hand holds book of 
the Gospels; in field 1¢ xc to left and right. Border 
of large dots. Rev.—Bust of the Virgin, facing, 
orans; wearing nimbus, and mantle and veil orna- 
mented with *:* on brow and shoulders; in field 
M-P ®V to left and right. Border of large dots. 
Pl. Il, 3. (The casts are transposed.) 

Class VIII. Obv.—Bust of Christ, bearded, 
facing, wearing nimbus cruciger with pag in each 
limb of cross, tunic and mantle; right hand raised 
in benediction; left hand holds book of the Gospels 
with %° on cover; in field 1c xc to left and right. 


BYZANTINE BRONZE 7 


Border of dots. Rev.—Patriarchal cross with one 
large pellet and two small pellets at each upper 
extremity; at base, large pellet with floral ornaments 
to left and right. Border of dots. PI. I], 5. 

Class IX. Obv.—Similar to Class VIII, but with 
one pellet in each limb of cross. Rev.—Latin 
cross with one large pellet and two small pellets at 
each upper extremity; at base, large pellet with 
floral ornaments to left and right. Above, crescents 
to left and right. In the center of the cross X 
Border of dots. PI. II, 6. 

Class X. Obv.—Bust of Christ, bearded, facing, 
wearing tunic and mantle; right hand raised in 
benediction; left hand holding book of the Gospels. 
Behind his head, cross, with °%: in each limb, wv 
between the limbs. In field 1c xc to left and right. 
Border of dots. Rev.—Latin cross with large pellet 
and two small pellets at each extremity. Below 
the cross, large crescent. To left and right, above 
and below, large pellets surrounded by small 
pellets. Border of dots. PI. II, 7. 

Class XI. Obv.—Bust of Christ, bearded, facing, 
wearing nimbus cruciger with one pellet in each 
limb of cross, tunic and mantle; right hand in bene- 
diction; left hand holding book of the Gospels. 
Border of large dots. Rev.—Half length figure of 
the Virgin, orans, wearing nimbus, veil mantle and 
tunic; in field © to left and right. Border of 
large dots. PI. II, 8. 

Class XII. Obv.—Similar. Rev.—Cross of four 
equal limbs, with a pellet at each upper extremity; 


8 THE ANONYMOUS 


base ending in floral ornaments to left and right. 
Above, to left and right, crescents. In the center 
of the cross X Border of dots. 

Class XIII. Obv.—Similar. Rev.—Small cross 
pattée. Above 1c; below xc; to left, N1; to right KA. 
Piya 

The only thoroughgoing attempt to assign these 
classes to the emperors who issued them was made 
by Warwick Wroth, who discusses the problem on 
pages 480-483 of the Catalogue of Imperial Byzan- 
tine Coins in the British Museum. Though my 
own arrangement necessarily differs from his in 
certain respects, and though it has seemed to me 
more useful to reexamine the whole question from 
the beginning than to make his essay the point of 
departure, I am deeply indebted to his labors, as 
everyone who works in the Byzantine field must be. 
It was Wroth who first pointed out that the order 
of issue of these classes could be determined by the 
evidence of restriking. That evidence, as far as it 
has come to my attention, is as follows: Class II is 
restruck on Class I (B.M.), Class III is restruck on 
Class II (B.M.), Class V is restruck on Class III 
(B.M.), Class V is restruck on Class IV (Berlin), 
Class VI is restruck on Class III (B.M.), Class VII 
is restruck on coins of Constantine X, 1059-1067, 
Class VIII is restruck on coins of Nicephorus III, 
1078-1081 (B.M.), Class IX is restruck on coins of 
Nicephorus III (Berlin), Class X is restruck on 
Class IX (Yale), Pl. II, 11, Class XI is restruck 
on Class X (Berlin). The necessary sequence of 


BYZANTINE BRONZE 9 


Classes, then, may be expressed graphically, thus— 


Class I 
| 


Class I] 


| 


Class II] Class IV 


mc ve 
Class V 


Class VI 


Constantine X 


Class VII 


_Nicephorus III 
Zh EN 

Class VIII Class IX 
| 


Class X 


Class XI 


From the reign of John until that of Constantine 
X there are no bronze coins with an imperial name 
or initial, so that Classes I to VI may be placed, 
between the years 969 and 1059, and assigned to the 
following rulers: John; Basil IJ and Constantine 
VIII together, 976-1025; Constantine VIII alone, 
1025-1028; Romanus III, 1028-1034; Michael IV, 
1034-1041; Michael V, 1041-1042; Zoe and Theo- 
dora together, 1042; Constantine IX, 1042-1055; 


10 THE ANONYMOUS 


_ Theodora alone 1055-1056; Michael VI, 1056-1057; 
Isaac I, 1057-1059. -Wroth’s arrangement was 
based on style: I propose to use the evidence of 
excavation. In the excavation of Corinth, con- 
ducted by the American School of Classical Studies 
at Athens, great numbers of coins are unearthed. 
In the year 1925, 693 Byzantine coins were found 
in sufficiently good condition to be identified, and, 
of these, 198 were anonymous bronze, distributed 
as follows: Class I, 79; Class II, 19; Class III, 11; 
Class IV, 1; Class V, 3; Class VI, 6; Class VII, 10; 
Class VIII, 15; Class IX, 31; Class X, 2; Class X1, 
20; Class XII, 0; Class XIII, 1. It is impossible 
to be certain about the results of previous years, 
but, so far as I have been able to compare with 
those results, the proportions of the 1925 dig seem 
to be borne out. At least there are no striking dis- 
crepancies. With numbers as large as these, pro- 
portions begin to be significant, and it may fairly 
be laid down that the frequency of an emperor’s 
coinage ought to be proportional to the length of 
his reign. Of course this rule must be followed with 
caution, but it is a useful supplement to the other 
evidence. Now, as we have seen, the coins of Class 
I are of the type described by Scylitzes as struck by 
John. But John reigned only from December 11, 
969 to January 10, 976, and, even if we assume that 
he began to coin at once, instead of a year and a 
half after his accession, as the current theory has it, 
that gives him only five years, which is obviously 
insufficient to account for any large number of finds. 


BYZANTINE BRONZE II 


Nicephorus II reigned six years, and there were only 
three of his pieces in the 1925 dig. Further, Class | 
exhibits a great variety of detail. As Wroth pointed 
out in an article contributed to ‘Corolla Numis- 
matica’’, 1906, there are different forms of orna- 
mentation in the cross of the nimbus, on the cover 
of the book, and above and below the reverse in- 
scription. A list of the varieties which have come 
to my attention, which are not all in the British 
Museum Catalogue, is as follows: 


In cross In book 


‘ieee : oUt above and below 
2 nothing ce es ca 

(Ply. h3) 

a + - below 
4 > nothing’; 
5 ia) and éé 
6 pam 66 66 66“ 
2 bc c bh 
3 ? an 
9 Hh 66 4c éé 
Io at (?) 46 46 é6 
II a ee Ay < 3 
12 : —— i a :; 
13 LEE og aa N % yi 
A 66 66 bb 
ie 3G 66 66 $6 
16 —f\— 6é 66 ° é6 

tPinl A) 


-—h- ‘* and below 


Lo] 
~J 


12 THE ANONYMOUS 


In cross In book 


1B : —-K - above and below 
19h Gy tees eo Ne 
ty : nothing 5s ie 
21 —x- fg aa oe 
22 -o-. - a a 
23 Oe si ahaha aoe 
24 Saale] “é sé ‘é 
(PST, °3) 
71 ee f0) si ‘““ and below 


26 (O] “ebro sé (as ic 


28 © gh Be ENS 3S oats 
29 3. -9 eS EECA ere 
EY cher ast Sine “ ‘ “ 
31 + -f. bs T 6a 
32 + + + # d: 3 
33 of. 300 rT ‘“ ‘ 
4 oS. ae i 
35 ‘7 ea “ ‘ ‘6 
36 see ‘ -f — ‘ “a & 
Siac (?) =o at a 
BS ives". (?) —)x¢— «Sage eo 
39 ig : wu “4 ‘“ 7 
40 see . wih «i 66 ‘c 
41 % pa rT “ “ 


(Pl. I, 5 rev.) 
Pe pe (?) —-A~ above and below 
43 * (O] —C- 66 66 bc 


BYZANTINE BRONZE 13 


In cross In book 


45 (?) -A~ above and below 
46 w °° oo fo 66 66 66 
CU eee i ony g , + . 
ORB 
ay, | wei as eae 
ME pA amg -“- :s ; “ 


(PI. I, 6 rev.) 
Shey ? — + = “and below 


John minted two types of gold and two of silver, 
both, apparently in very small quantities. It is 
out of the question to assume that he issued fifty-one 
varieties of bronze. Wroth’s way out of the dif- 
ficulty is an ingenious one. He assumes that the 
decorations in the cross of the nimbus furnish the 
key and, after comparison with the gold and silver 
coinage, assigns to John only those pieces with one, 
two, or three pellets in the cross, reserving all the 
others of this class for John’s successors, Basil, 
Constantine, and Romanus. But there are objec- 
tions to this, both theoretical and practical. Why 
is the nimbus ornament any more important than 
the ornament on the book, or the ornaments on the 
reverse? It will be seen, for example, that the 
device ~O— on the reverse occurs with four dif- 
ferent nimbus ornaments and four different book 
ornaments (Nos. 14, 22, 29, 35, 41). Why not 
assign all these to one emperor? Against any real 
difference of type, of course, such similarity of orna- 
ment would be of no value, but when it is merely 


14 THE ANONYMOUS 


one ornament against another, the case seems much 
more doubtful. And, practically, the solution, while 
in the right direction, is nothing like radical enough. 
Nos. 45 and 46 he reserves for Constantine alone, 
and No. 47 he gives to Romanus, but that still 
leaves thirty varieties for the five years of John’s 
reign, eighteen, at the most, for Basil and Con- 
stantine together, who reigned for fifty years! Of 
the 79 coins from Corinth, 44 would fall to John, 9 to 
Basil and Constantine, I to Romanus; the orna- 
ments of the other 25 are illegible. Clearly, this 
will not do. Yet no other arrangement of Wroth’s 
method will make things better. We must find a 
surer basis of differentiation or give it up. For- 
tunately there is another test available: that of 
fabric. The bronze of Nicephorus is struck on 
small flans (21-28 mm.) and generally on irregular 
ones (Pl. I, 1). There occur also certain pieces of 
Class I of identical fabric, with inscriptions in small 
letters like those of Nicephorus (Pl. I, 2). The 
general resemblance is so striking that it is impossible 
to avoid the conclusion that these were struck by 
John, continuing, as a matter of course, the fabric, 
though not the types of his predecessor. This 
conclusion is further strengthened by the occasional 
coins of this kind struck over types of Nicephorus. 
These pieces are uncommon: 3 out of 79, which 
would make them about on a par with the coinage 
of Nicephorus. As the gold and silver of both these 
emperors is rare, I believe that they issued little of 
any currency and relied chiefly on the coins of 


BYZANTINE BRONZE 15 


Constantine VII, 913-959, and Romanus I, 919-944, 
which were abundant. If we assume that John 
struck the small coins only, we may then credit to 
Basil and Constantine the large issues of fine new 
flans of 30 mm. and over, which constitute the bulk 
of Class I. There are, however, two intermediate 
varieties, Nos. 24 and 40, which, while struck on 
better flans than those of Nicephorus, are regularly 
smaller than the other varieties, only one that I 
have seen reaching 30 mm. (PI. I, 3). I should 
put these two as the first issues of Basil and Con- 
stantine, reserving the larger coins for the period of 
prosperity which began with the collapse of the 
rebellion of Bardas Phocas in 989. Further than 
this I confess I have no suggestion to offer as to the 
order of varieties, except to report that inconclusive 
evidence from restriking of one variety on another 
indicates No. 5 as an early one. The letters on 
some of the varieties may furnish a useful clue, but, 
at present, there is no evidence that is reliable. Nor 
am I prepared to prove how long Class I continued. 
If it was struck by Basil and Constantine together, 
it is natural to suppose that, after Basil’s death, 
Constantine alone would continue its use, and inter- 
esting evidence of its persistence beyond the reign 
of John is furnished by the lead seals. Schlum- 
berger (Sigillographie de l’Empire Byzantin, p. 421) 
publishes a cut of a seal of Basil II, showing on one 
side the portrait of the Emperor with his name, on 
the other, the bust of Christ of just the type of the 
anonymous bronze. A still more striking example 


16 THE ANONYMOUS 


is a seal in the possession of Mr. Thomas Whitte- 
more of New York (PI. III, 8). The imperial por- 
trait of Constantine VIII is exactly like that on his 
gold coins, while the type of the reverse is so close 
to the anonymous bronze in size, details and style 
that it seems almost as though it were struck from a 
coin die. But Romanus III introduced an entirely 
new type on his gold, and we should expect him to 
change the type of the bronze, also. Yet Wroth 
assigns to him one of the varieties of Class I, and, 
though I cannot be so specific as that, I am forced 
to conclude that he did strike bronze of Class I or 
none by the evidence of proportion. The simplest 
exposition of this evidence is to list the emperors, 
their regnal years, the Classes which I assign to 
them and the number of coins of each class found 
among the 198 before referred to. 


John I Dec. 969-Jan. 976 5 years ClassI 3 
Basil I and 

Constantine VIII Jan. 976—-Dec. 1025 50 years Class I 
Constantine VIII Dec. 1to25-Nov. 1028 3 years ClassI; 76 


Romanus III Nov. 1028-Apr. 1034 5 years Class I 

Michael IV Apr. 1034-Dec. 1041 8 years ClassII 19 
Michael V Dec. 1041-Apr. 1042 none ° 
Zoe and Theodora Apr. — June 1042 none re) 
Constantine IX June 1042~Jan. 1055 1234 years Class III 11 
Theodora Jan. 1055-Aug. 1056 134 years ClassIV 1 
Michael VI Aug. 1056-Aug. 1057 1tyear ClassV 3 
Isaac I Aug. 10§57-Dec. 1059 2 years ClassVI 6 
Michael VII Aug. 1071-Mar. 1078 634 years Class VII 10 


Classes VIII-XIII will be considered later. 


As to the two reigns to which no bronze is attri- 
buted, the former has only one type of gold, attri- 
buted by a probable conjecture (B.M.C. p. 498) 


BYZANTINE BRONZE ez 


and no silver, the latter neither silver nor gold. 
Each of the others is represented by at least one 
type of signed gold. It will be seen that the 
number of coins found, while not in exact proportion 
to the lengths of reign, is roughly parallel, and this, 
combined with the sequence of types, makes the 
arrangement a plausible one. If Class II were 
attributed to Romanus III where it ought to be on 
purely reasonable grounds, that would move Class 
III up to Michael IV. That would be possible, 
though it would not improve the present proportions, 
but, then, the 12% years of Constantine IX would 
be represented by a single coin of Class IV, which 
is most unlikely. A better amendment would be to 
assign to Romanus III the one piece of Class IV, of 
which we only know that it must come before Class 
V. But there are two objections to this. In the 
first place the fabric is not right. The size of the 
flan gradually shrinks after Basil and Constantine, 
and the place of Class IV in this process of degenera- 
tion is clearly after Class III even though there is 
no evidence from restriking. In the second place, 
such a change would necessitate either leaving 
Theodora without bronze, giving her Class V and 
leaving Michael without bronze, or moving Class V 
and VI up and leaving Isaac I without bronze. Of 
these choices, the second is the better, for, while 
Michael struck certainly one and probably two 
types of gold, Theodora struck two of gold and one 
of silver, Isaac three of gold and one of silver. 
Moreover, the reign of Michael was the shortest. 


18 THE ANONYMOUS 


But it was not short enough to deprive him of his 
bronze without good reason. As nothing is accom- 
plished by putting Class VI ahead of Class IV or V 
or both, and as, on the evidence of restriking, no 
other rearrangement of Classes I-VI is possible, 
the present order must remain as the best available 
solution until further evidence shall confirm or 
refute it. 

The case of Class VII is different, and presents a 
problem. The termini of the type are defined by 
restruck specimens. It is found in Berlin struck 
over the type of Constantine X bearing figures of 
Constantine and Eudocia. On the other hand, 
De Saulcy (Numismatique Byzantine p. 250) 
reported that it was used as a flan for Romanus IV, 
and such a coin, in the possession of the American 
Numismatic Society, is figured on Pl. II, 4. There 
are, then, three possibilities between which we must 
choose. 1. Class VI] isa late type of Constantine X. 
2. It is an early type of Romanus IV. 3. It isa 
type of Eudocia, widow of Constantine X, and her 
sons, Michael and Constantine. None of the choices 
seems satisfactory. The interregnum of Eudocia 
and her sons lasted only from May to December 
1067, and Class VII is much too common a type to 
have been issued in eight months. If either Con- 
stantine or Romanus was the issuer, he must have 
restruck one type of his own coinage on another. 
This is not an unparalled phenomenon, but it is a 
rare one, and a solution which one is reluctant to 
accept. As between the two, the balance of proba- 


BYZANTINE BRONZE 19 


bility is slightly in favor of Constantine on the 
grounds of proportion. In the 1925 dig there are 
two coins of the signed issues of Constantine X, 
one of each, and two of the type of Romanus bearing 
his initial. Since the former reigned for 7% years, 
the latter for a little less than 4, the extra ten pieces 
of Class VII might more reasonably be attributed 
to the former. It might also be argued that the 
striking of an anonymous piece over a signed piece 
is different from striking a piece with an initial over 
an anonymous one, but whether this argument 
favors Constantine or Romanus will depend on the 
point of view of the individual. But there is an- 
other circumstance which bears against them both. 
Whereas the coinages of both occur in the excavation 
in small but regular numbers, Michael VII, who 
reigned from August 1071—March 1078 struck a 
type of bronze bearing his name, but it is represented 
at Corinth only by a single specimen found in 1907. 
This dearth is the more surprising because his suc- 
cessor Nicephorus III, 1078-1081, contributed 
forty-six coins to the 1925 dig alone, Alexius I, 
1081-1118, one hundred and eighty seven! We 
know of no circumstance which could have isolated 
Corinth during the reign of Michael VII, and he 
was not without coinage, for he struck, in addition 
to his signed bronze, three types of gold and four of 
silver. To meet this difficulty I propose the fol- 
lowing explanation. After Eudocia and her sons. 
had reigned for part of the year 1067, in December 
she married again, and her husband, Romanus 


20 THE ANONYMOUS 


Diogenes, was crowned as Romanus IV. The fact 
that this was a friendly arrangement, at least at 
first, and not an act of usurpation, is attested by the 
gold nomisma bearing Romanus and Eudocia on 
one side, Michael, Constantine and Eudocia’s other 
son Andronicus on the other. Now the interregnum 
is also represented by a nomisma, showing Eudocia, 
Michael and Constantine, and it is possible that at 
the same time the issuance of Class VII began and 
either ran concurrently with the bronze of Romanus, 
or, having been superseded by his type, was revived 
again when the Seljuks had taken Romanus pris- 
oner, by Michael, whose imperial position had 
never lapsed and who now came to the sole power 
at the capture of his step-father and the deposition 
of his mother. Of course, this explanation cannot 
be regarded as proved, and probably not as capable 
of proof, but it would show how the type of Romanus 
came to be struck on Class VII, and would assign 
to Michael VII that large class, supplying his reign 
with proper representation at Corinth, and forming 
an appropriate prelude to the abundant issues of 
Nicephorus III and his successors. 

Wroth attributes Classes VII and XI both to 
Constantine IX and considers that “in type and 
fabric this (Class XI—his Class VIII) differs little 
from Class VII.” The restriking shows the attri- 
bution to be impossible, and, while the types are 
certainly notably similar, the fabric does in fact 
differ so markedly as to make it certain that Class 
XI, which is consistently smaller, was issued by 


BYZANTINE BRONZE 21 


another emperor, and a later one. In the Numis- 
matic Museum at Athens there is a piece of this 
type clearly struck over a coin of Nicephorus ITI. 
It must, then be a type of Nicephorus himself, of 
Nicephorus Melissenus, pretender to the throne, 
1080-1081, or of Alexius I. As the bronze of suc- 
ceeding rulers is smaller, much thinner, and of en- 
tirely different types, they need not be considered. 
The frequency of the issue precludes the possibility 
of the pretender, and we must chose between Nice- 
phorus III and Alexius. As there are nine types of 
bronze bearing Alexius’ name, one hesitates to 
increase his already large issue, but the intimate 
relations between this, and another of his types, to 
be discussed presently, force the conclusion that. 
Class XI is his. 

Classes VIJTI—X and XI and XIII form an inter- 
esting group which has been rejected from the 
Byzantine series by the most competent authorities. 
Sabatier (Vol. II, p. 231) and De Saulcy (op. cit. 
pp. 377ff.) originally attributed them to the Latin 
Emperors of Constantinople, 1204-1261. Against 
this attribution, Wroth (B.M.C. p. 554) rightly 
objects that their fabric ‘‘is of the eleventh and 
twelfth centuries rather than of the thirteenth 
century,” and that, as they occur restruck on coins 
of Isaac I, Constantine X, Michael VII and Nice- 
phorus III, they should be placed about the time 
of Alexius. But Schlumberger will not admit them 
as imperial coins. His argument is based on 
provenance. ‘‘Tous les exemplaires de ce type que 


22 THE ANONYMOUS 


j'ai recu’’ he says (Numismatique de l’Orient Latin, 
p. 22) ‘‘me sont venus de Beyrouth, d’Alep, et 
meme de Bagdad, confondus avec d’autres piéces de 
cuivre des comtes d’Edesse, de Roger et de Tancréde 
d’ Antioch—I]1 est impossible que des piéces frappées 
& Constantinople ne se trouvent qu’en Syrie ou sur 
les bords de |’Euphrate.”’ Influenced by the simi- 
larity of certain pieces of Baldwin II of Edessa, 
(cf. ibid. Pl. I) he therefore attributes the anony- 
mous pieces to the same ruler. De Saulcy accepted 
his reasoning, and Wroth regards them as “coins of 
the Crusaders struck in Syria or Palestine.’’ These 
are authorities not lightly to be set aside, but the 
facts are clearly against them. No coin struck by 
the Crusaders in Asia Minor has yet been found at 
Corinth. If one or two did turn up it would be no 
more surprising than the occasional finding of 
English pennies of Henry III. But of Class X 
there were 2 in 1925, of Class VIII, 15, and of Class 
IX, 31. The excavations of other years have 
produced them regularly in similar quantities. 
Moreover, they occur quite as regularly elsewhere 
in Greece: in the British excavations at Sparta, 
for instance, and even at the Fogg Museum’s 
small dig at Eutresis in Boeotia. They can be 
found in the hands of any antique dealer in Athens. 
Surely this is sufficient refutation of M. Schlum- 
berger’s argument that they are found only in the 
East. And surely there is only one coinage which 
could be current both in Corinth and in Syria: the 
Imperial Byzantine issues. The conclusion is that 


BYZANTINE BRONZE 2 


WwW 


they are coins of Alexius—Crusaders’ coins truly, 
but struck for the Crusaders and not by them. 
The type is so significant that it seems impossible 
to attribute them to Nicephorus III, whose brief 
and uneasy reign is well supplied with bronze bearing 
his initial. Earlier than Nicephorus they cannot 
be, as they occur struck over his coins, and the 
emperors after Alexius are definitely excluded on 
the evidence of fabric. The few coins of Class X 
that I have seen are 27 mm. in diameter, or slightly 
larger; Class VIII averages 25.5 mm.; Class IX, 
24mm. The bronze coinage of Alexius which bears 
his name averages slightly under 20 mm., and, 
‘though the less common bronze of John II, 1118- 
1143, is slightly over 20 mm., that of his successor, 
Manuel I, 1143-1180, is never larger than 19.5 mm. 
and averages only a trifle over 16 mm. This de- 
crease in diameter is accompanied by a decrease in 
thickness, hardly measurable but instantly apparent. 
Style as well as fabric make an attribution of the 
anonymous pieces to emperors later than Manuel 
out of the question. Their likeness to the coins of 
Baldwin of Edessa is now fully explained; Baldwin’s 
currency was imitated from the imperial issues. 
But we are now met with irritating difficulties. 
On the evidence of fabric, Class X, which is the 
largest, should come before Classes VIII and IX. 
But there is in the Yale collection a specimen which 
shows unmistakably a part of the Latin cross with 
floral ornaments of Class IX under the obverse 
type of Class X. Furthermore, Class XI, with the 


24 THE ANONYMOUS 


bust of Christ and the half length figure of the Virgin, 
is found struck over Class X. There are five coins 
in Berlin which show traces of both types, and, 
much as I should like to believe that Class XI is 
the earlier, it is only too plain that this is not so. 
One piece, for example, was struck first by Nice- 
phorus III. On the obverse is visible part of the 
nimbus, two limbs of the cross and part of the head 
and robe of Christ from his type. Above this are 
the two other types: the bust of Christ with a 
border of large dots, and the cross on a crescent, 
with only one of the large pellets surrounded by 
small pellets showing. This might be ambiguous, 
but, on the reverse, the ® and A, one arm of the 
cross and one globule of the reverse of Nicephorus 
can be seen, over which is the half length Virgin, 
with no sign of the reverse of Class X, which could 
hardly be the case if this were the last type struck. 
Were it not for this complication, the coinage of 
Alexius would be comparatively simple. We should 
attribute Class XI to his earlier years, 1081-1095, 
the types with Christ and a cross to the period of 
his dealings with the Crusaders, and the types 
bearing his initial or name to his later years. One 
would like to believe that these pious pieces were 
first struck in connection with the pious enterprise 
which Alexius incautiously stimulated, and which 
all but engulfed him. But, if we do so, we must 
hold that, for the first fifteen years of his reign he 
struck no bronze, which seems unlikely in the 
extreme. The only way out is to prove that the 


BYZANTINE BRONZE 25 


various types were struck concurrently, whether at 
the same or at separate mints, and for such a purpose 
we need a great deal more evidence than we now 
have. This confusion of types does, however, 
make it more certain that they are all the coinage of 
Alexius, especially when we find occasional pieces 
of the bronze with his name bearing the circle of 
large dots of Class XI (cf. B.M.C. Pl. LXV, 17 and 
22). Moreover, there is one piece in the Yale col- 
lection one side of which bears the half length figure 
of the Virgin, orans, of Class XI, while the other 
has the Latin cross, large and small pellets, of Class 
X (Pl. II, 12). The coin is worn and obscure, but 
it does not seem to have been overstruck. It is 
apparently either a mule or a rare transitional issue 
between Classes X and XI. We must rest our 
case, then, with the assumption that Class VIII is 
the first of Alexius’ types, to a modification of 
which he later returned because of its appropriate- 
ness to the Crusaders with whom he had so many 
financial dealings. 

The question of priority between Classes VIII 
and IX is conjectural. I put them in this order 
because, in the first place, the flans of Class VIII 
average slightly larger than those of Class IX, and, 
in the second place, the Latin cross of Class IX 
with X in the center is more closely connected 
with the cross of equal limbs, with X in the center 
which appears on the reverse of the earliest of 
Alexius’ signed bronzes. Class XII is figured by 
Sabatier Vol. II, Pl. LVIII, No. 16. It has not 


26 THE ANONYMOUS 


occurred at Corinth so far as I know. I assume 
that it is another step in the development of the 
cross pattée. In the case of Class XIII, Pl. II, 
9, 10, the cross pattée appears, though, it is true, 
the X in the center is missing. I assign them ten- 
tatively to the very end of the anonymous series, 
certainly to the reign of Alexius. It is to be hoped 
that a more thorough study of that reign may 
eventually serve to clear up the problems of his unat- 
tractive but important coinage. 

It remains to say a word about the barbarous 
imitations of these anonymous pieces. There are 
two caricatures of Class II in Berlin among the 
coins from Baalbec (PI. III, 1, 2). There is a worn 
coin in the Yale collection bearing, on the obverse, 
Christ seated on a throne with a back, on the reverse 
a blundered imitation of Class III. A smaller and 
clearer piece from Berlin is similar, Pl. III, 7... 
Another barbarous imitation of Class 
III comes from Berlin, Pl. III, 4. 
There is an obscure imitation of Class 
VIII among the coins from Corinth, 
Pl. III, 5. And, finally, there is an- 
other coin in the Yale collection bear- 
ing a barbarous bust of Christ on the obverse and 
with the reverse like Fig. 1. This, to be sure, is not 
related to the anonymous coins, being an imitation 
of a signed type of Alexius I (B.M.C. p. 551, Type 
9). But I introduce it here for the light it sheds 
on the coin which Schlumberger figures, Pl. I, 17, 
among the pieces of the Counts of Edessa. I have 


BYZANTINE BRONZE 27 


made no systematic search for such imitations, which 
may be quite common, and may either be the early 
attempts of the Crusaders themselves, or forgeries 
of Moslems or northern barbarians. 

The problems of the anonymous bronze are cer- 
tainly not yet finally settled, but it has seemed useful 
to record such evidence as is now available, in the 
hope that it may advance a little the much neglected 
study of Byzantine numismatics. 


aeerest 
a? 


ik 
3 


- 


leg fot, ene 


PPA 


a i ake 3 
% 
t. 
an 
: . 
‘ 
Eras 
ty, 
. ? 
i 
of q 
, , 
if ~ 
E + 
: re ’ ry 
52% ex 
wee ee) FATT Hy 5 re 


¥ A, p 5 
y | { uy, oa 
; f a Ee ee 


ANONYMOUS BYZANTINE BRONZE 


ry, 


Plate I 


>. 
vi Preven 
S460 28U 
TONG 


a L 


ANONYMOUS BYZANTINE BRONZE 


Plate II 


tote bee ee he, 


ANONYMOUS BYZANTINE BRONZE Fonte é Saat 


Plate ITI 


NumisMaTic NoTEs AND MONOGRAPHS _ 


1. Sydney P. Noe. Coin Hoards. 1921. 47 pp. 
6 pls. 50c. eee 
4. Howland Wood. The Mexican Revolutionary | 
Coinage. 1913-1916. 1921. 44 pp. 26 pls. 
$2.00. 
6. Agnes Baldwin. Five Roman Gold Medallions. 
1921. 103 pp. 8 pls. $1.50. . : 
7. Sydney P. Noe. Medallic Work of A. A. Wein- 
man. 1921. 3lpp. 17 pls. $1.00. 
8. Gilbert S. Perez. The Mint of the Philippine © 
Islands. 1921. 8pp. 4pls. 50c. 
9. David Eugene Smith, LL.D. Computing Jetons. 
1921. 70 pp. 25 pls. $1.50. 
10. Edward T. Newell. The First Seleucid Coinage 
_ of Tyre. 1921. 40 pp. 8pls. $1.00. 
11. Harrold E. Gillingham. French Orders and 
Decorations. 1922. 110 pp. 35 pls. $2.00. 
——— Sollars (Ol too.) ieee. 


Uohammedan Coinage of 
56 pp. I5 pls. $2.00. 
belos I of Characene. 
$1.00. 

cistes (A Contribution to 
yc 1922. 234 pp. 13 


nemorative Coinage of 
63 pp. 7pls. $1.50. 
man Bronze Medallions. 
$1.50. 

galpa Coinage of 1823. 
50c. 

xander Hoards—II. De- 
1923. 162pp. 8pls. $2.50. 


manhur Hoard. 


REE 


34. 


NUMISMATIC NOTES AND MONOGRAPHS 
> x (Continued) 


. Harrold E. Gillingham. Italian Orders of Chivatry 


and Medals of Honour. 1923. 146 pp. 34 
pls. $2.00. 


. Edward T. Newell. “Mesander Hoards—IlII. 


Andritsaena. 1924. 39 pp. 6 pls. $1.00. 


. C. T. Seltman. A Hoard from Side. 1924. 20 


pp. 3pls. $1.00. 


. R. B. Seager. A Cretan Coin Hoard. 1924, 55 


pp. 12 pls. $2.00. 


. Samuel R. Milbank. The CHnante of Aegina. | 


1925. 66 pp. Spls. $2.00. 


. Sydney P. Noe. A Bibliography of Greek pe 


Hoards. 1925. 275 pp. $2.50. 


. Edward T. Newell. Mithradates of Parthia and 


Hyspaosines of Characene. 1925. 18 pp. 2pls. — 
, 50c. N - e 


. Sydney P. Noe. The Mende (Kaliandra) Hoard, 


1926. 73 pp. 10pls. $2.00. 


. Agnes Baldwin. Four Medallions from the Arras 


Hoard. 1926. 36 pp. 4 pls. $1.50. 


. H. Alexander Parsons. The Earliest Coins of 


‘Norway. 1926. 41 pp. 50c. 


. Edward T. Newell. Some Unpublished Coins of ; 


Eastern Dynasts. 1926. 21 pp. 2 pls. 50c. 


. Harrold E. Gillingham. Spanish Orders of Chival- 


ry and Decorations of Honour. 1926. 165 pp. 
40 pls. $3.00. : 


. Sydney P. Noe. The Coinage of irae rerescneei: 


1927 (Part 1). 134 pp. 23 pls. $3.00. 
Edward T. Newell. Two Recent Egyptian 
Hoards—Deita and Keneh. 1927. 34 pp. | 
3 pls. $1.00. . 
Edward Rogers. ‘The Second oy Third Seleucid 
Coinage of Tyre. 1927. 33 pp. 4pls. $1.50. 


K 


